DisAbility Partners- Asheville office

What the center reported

223Consumers served155 carried over, 68 new
504Information and referral contacts
$438,337Total income
$52,257Part B
$381,080Part C
29Goals achievedof 276 set
2Moved out of institutionsrelocation goals achieved
8Years reportedof 8 since 2016

Funding sources

Income by source, report year 2023Dollars received, as reported. The report does not show expenditure.
Source	Amount
Title VII Part B (through the state)	$52,257
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$381,080
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$0
State government funds	$0
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$5,000
Total income	$438,337

Eight years of reports

DisAbility Partners- Asheville office by report yearA blank row means no report was found for that year.
Report year	Consumers served	Total income	Part B	Part C	Moved out of institutions
2016	375	$487,791	$59,556	$285,254	3
2017	414	$322,741	$31,468	$285,668	2
2018	302	$389,106	$35,809	$324,163	1
2019	278	$485,441	$30,760	$392,852	0
2020	345	$749,297	$45,124	$335,615	1
2021	293	$406,746	$44,261	$337,078	0
2022	233	$385,441	$35,824	$348,161	3
2023	223	$438,337	$52,257	$381,080	2

Consumers served, by year

2016375
2017414
2018302
2019278
2020345
2021293
2022233
2023223

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 1 of 4 by total income). 100 is the most favourable position. How each measure is built and what it cannot tell you.

Relative measures, report year 2023
Measure	Value	National percentile	Size-peer percentile	What it is
Income per consumer	$1,966	70th	48th	Total income divided by consumers served. Lower ranks higher. It is intensity, not efficiency: a center doing nursing-home transitions costs more per person than one doing mostly information.
Income per goal achieved	$15,115	23th	10th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	10.5%	8th	6th	Goals achieved as a share of goals set. A rate near 100% can mean goals are recorded only when already met.
Records closed with all goals met	25.0%	18th	17th	Share of closed consumer records closed as "completed all goals set". Recorded at exit, so a stronger signal than goal counts.
Transitions per 100 consumers	0.90	52th	52th	Relocation-from-institution goals achieved per 100 consumers. Zero is common at small centers; the percentile shows how common.
Transitions per $100,000 of Part C	0.52	33th	41th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	87.3%	21th	23th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	80.0%	67th	54th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 4 of 5 members.
Staff with disabilities	86.0%	68th	42th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 6.0 of 7.0 FTE.
Equity index	13.4	76th	79th	Index of dissimilarity between the race and ethnicity of consumers and of the state's disability population, 0 to 100. Lower ranks higher. Compared with the state, not the center's actual service area.
Income volatility	26.5%	33th	35th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	53th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 98.9% of income; Part B varied by 23.0% (coefficient of variation) across the years reported.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (504) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Peer counseling	68	68	100.0%
IL skills training	41	41	100.0%
Assistive technology	33	19	57.6%
Housing and home modifications	13	8	61.5%
Recreational services	10	10	100.0%
Other services	8	4	50.0%
Advocacy and legal services	7	7	100.0%
Youth transition	1	1	100.0%
All services	181	158	87.3%

Largest unmet demand

Services with ten or more requests, ordered by the share that went unfilled.

Assistive technology: 19 of 33 requests filled (57.6%).
Housing and home modifications: 8 of 13 requests filled (61.5%).
IL skills training: 41 of 41 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 68 of 68 requests filled (100.0%).
Recreational services: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	12	0	12
Communication	1	0	1
Mobility and transportation	5	0	5
Community-based living	71	5	65
Educational	3	0	3
Vocational	31	2	28
Self-care	9	0	9
Information access and technology	64	20	43
Personal resource management	27	0	27
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	4	2	2
Community and social participation	34	0	34
Other	15	0	15

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	1
5 to 19	2
20 to 24	5
25 to 59	131
60 and older	84
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	19
Mental or emotional	54
Physical	56
Hearing	1
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	80
Other	10

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with North Carolina residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 12 consumers of unknown race. State shares are from ACS B18101A to B18101I. A ratio above 1 means the group is a larger share of consumers than of the state's disability population.
Group	Consumers	Share of consumers	Share of state disability population	Ratio
White	165	78.2%	64.8%	1.21
Black or African American	34	16.1%	21.6%	0.75
American Indian or Alaska Native	2	0.9%	1.3%	0.72
Asian	1	0.5%	1.4%	0.34
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.1%	0.00
Two or more races	2	0.9%	5.2%	0.18
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	7	3.3%	5.7%	0.59

Hispanic or Latino is an ethnicity reported alongside race in the PPR, so shares can sum to more than 100%. The comparison is with the whole state, which overstates any mismatch for a center that serves one part of it.

Data quality

Eight arithmetic checks run over every center's report. They test whether the tables agree with each other, nothing more. How often each check fails nationally.

None of the arithmetic checks failed for this report. That means the tables add up, not that the counts are verified.

What this cannot tell you

The report is unaudited self-report. Nobody verifies the consumer counts.
It reports income, not expenditure. A cost measure here is a stand-in until checked against the center's audited financial statements.
Part B and Part C outcomes are not separable. The center reports total activity.
There is no county, city or island detail in the public file.
Percentiles compare centers whose definitions of "consumer" and "goal" may differ. The data-quality row is the only signal of that in the public data.
Relative position is not impact. Nothing here supports a causal claim about what the center changed in anyone's life.

Source: Administration for Community Living, Centers for Independent Living Program Performance Report public datafiles, report years 2016 to 2023. Generated 2026-10-25.